Arab League chief blasts US pro-Israel "bias"

Does billions and billions every year in free attack helicopters, bombs, and money for settlement expansion count as a 'bias'? Gee I dunno ... this guy is probably just an anti-semite.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20031030/wl_mideast_afp/mideast_arab_us_031030133611

CAIRO (AFP) - Arab League chief Amr Mussa told a US envoy that the Arab world was angry at what he described as Washington's pro-Israeli bias, a league spokesman said.

Mussa told US ambassador David Welch that "there were feelings of anger and frustration in the Arab world because of the deterioration of the situation in the occupied territories and the American bias in favor of Israel," spokesman Hisham Yussef told reporters.

...advised Arabs to court the US, to establish the social and institutional ties that would overcome stereotypes and allow empathy to take root.

Merely stating the obvious about our Israeli bias will not win hearts and minds here.

Frankly I don't think it matters much what leaders of the Arab League have to say -- the U.S. and Israel have their own plans which they are going to see through regardless of Arab opinion towards them.

think, or want.

until they worked hard to influence American opinion so I disagree in this instance.

might just prove the Arab complaint that the US is overly pro-Israel. Iraq's
Chalibi is supported by Wolfowitz, Perle, The Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, Washington Institute for Near East Policies, AIPAC and of course the Iraq National Congress. Wolfowitz and Perle are affiliated with these origanizations. Chalibi is hailed and lauded by chief members of the Bush administration. Chalibi is wanted in the Mid-East country of Jordan for banking fraud and other illegalities. Wolfowitz and Perle are the architects of the war against Iraq and control the US administration and State Dept policies. It is about control of Mid-East oil, protecting Israel against it's enemies, and untimately military control of other Mid-East nations and their oil riches. Insane.

he is part of the world-wide Jewish conspiracy. So are Bush and Chenney.....all part of the plot. Of course Wolfie et al could have drugged them and then taken control of their minds and hearts. Either theory seems normal and logical, take your pick.

Why wouldn't the US have a self-interested bias in favoring the only Western-style democracy in the Middle East?

Everyone who has posted so far has done so as if this were some kind of ZOG conspiracy. Are the free masons involved, too?

Why so much hatred directed at Israel on this site?

affiliated with Perle and Wolfowitz. Easy enough to draw conclusions what the aims are supported by these organizations. Dislike and distrust is not directed at Israel per se, but at the Israel leadership in power led by Ariel Sharon. As I have stated many times I join those Israeli dissidents as well as American Jews who refuse to support the Sharon's policies.

to say "hatred directed at Israel".

Instead of "hatred" towards Israel, it's anger over the murders of innocent people, the theft of Palestinian land, the creation of mass homelessness and despair, the shootings and murders of peace activists, the racist Apartheid policy, the settlement expansion, the bulldozing of homes, and of course, the blind, unconditional support the U.S. gives Israel, despite all the terrorism and war crimes committed against Palestinians.

Do you now see the difference?

There are clearly a whole bunch of folks here who challenge the legitimacy of the state of Israel. That's not saying, "Oh, we don't like what you did today." That's saying they don't believe Israel has a right to exist.

BTW, slight typo in your last sentence. It should read, "despite all the terrorism and war crimes committed BY Palestinians."

I was referring to IDF terrorism committed against Palestinian civilians, which is equally as awful as Palestinian extremists committing terrorist acts on Israeli civilians.

I don't personally challenge the legitimacy of the State of Israel because I don't think it is helpful in making progress towards a peaceful resolution. But I also don't think there is a problem challenging it - Who cares if people challenge one state or another's legitimacy? It doesn't prove what you think you are trying to prove - at all.

It shows exactly what I am trying to show. There are some here who are against Israel no matter what it does. So, given that, it can do nothing correct in their eyes. Israel should not negotiate with any person or group that does not recognize its legitimacy.

Much of what happens to Palestinian civilians is a direct result of several groups of terrorists being allowed to live, train, build, plan and recruit right in their midst. The Palestinian leadership does nothing about this, yet everyone complains if Israel does.

When has israel stopped the settlements and stopped the occupation? When has Israel given all Palestinians on the West Bank their own country or the right to vote? I think most of the terrorism is caused by Israel not following through with these steps. It makes Palestinians think peace with Israel is nothing but submission to second class status.

Can choose to think anything they wish. However, if they wish to settle this 55-year-old (or more depending on how you count) war, then they have to negotiate with Israel. They also have to recognize that many terror groups will NEVER accept Israel. That means, for there to be peace, the terror groups must become enemies of both sides.

Then, and only then, can there be peace. Then, and only then, can there be a Palestinian state.

. Until Palestinians have a state that can actually stop terrorists this is just chasing our tails, and creating conditions that are impossible to comply with.

In every agreement that has been even discussed between the sides most of the settlements go away. The settlers clearly remain a bargaining chip and a way to try and force the Palestinians to the peace table.

the right for Israel to exist. Totally. Do understand the difference?

and you support Israel's right to exist, then you don't understand/know what "zionism" is. Please stop misusing the term.







Never Again.

but from the Palestinian viewpoint, it means reckless massacres of their people, forced removal to miserable refugee camps, demolition of their homes, and burning down of their farmland (among other things). Therefore, it is entirely reasonable to say that "anti-Zionism" is the opposition to the massacres, opposition to the home demolitions, etc.

Never again, to anyone.

This time I just went to Dictionary.com:

"Zi·on·ism n. A Jewish movement that arose in the late 19th century in response to growing anti-Semitism and sought to reestablish a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Modern Zionism is concerned with the support and development of the state of Israel."

and you're obviously incapable of understanding the concept that 'Zionism' can mean different things to different people.

Oh well, I tried.

I acknowledge it can have ADDED meanings, but the basic meaning is decided.

to start from the same point. Now, you may add in order to impliment this ..... but you may not change the definition. BTW, just who is doing these nefarious deeds and why?

whatever that is

it does not appear to equate with the right of Israel to exist. So please define
zionism
Israel
your terminology is confusing.

as opposed to recognizing the innate rights of those born and raised on territory controlled for centuries.

How is the recognition of Israel compatable with all international law passed since 1945?

n/t

Which recognized Israel.

Jews have lived on that very land for centuries.

Yes, your subject line reads quite impressively, it's just wrong is all.

-snip-

At the end of World War I, Palestine was an Arab country similar to other parts of the Arab World. It had a population of Palestine had a population of 657,000 Muslims Arabs, 81,000 Christian Arabs, and 59,000 Jews (including many European Jews from the first and second Aliyah). So the Jewish population of Palestine in 1914 made up under 8% of the total population (Righteous Victims, p. 83). It should noted that most Palestinian Jews (Yishuv) at the time where mostly Hasidic Jews concentrating in and around Jerusalem, Safad, and Jaffa, and only 12,000 of these Jews lived on the land as farmers.

http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Palestine-Remembered/Story664.html

?

What hateful message did you glean from it?

like this that stated similar things from an Israeli perspective the best thing you would say about it was it was propoganda.

Israel is hardly a theocracy. That's 2 different posts where you have misrepresented the facts on this thread alone.

Modern countries formed to enfranchise peoples

Poland, Czechslovokia, Eritrea, former Balkan countries etc.
All these countries had ethnic populations that existed in sizeable numbers and which the group existed usually in some oppressed fashion within a larger country. How does the modern state of Israel emulate this model?

Is it valid to honor the claims of people seperated by 2000 years as opposed the claims of those who are still living and have recently lived on said land?

So if Zionism is not a glorified version of secular land rights what possibly can it be? Perhaps certain groups think they have divine right to a certain geographic region as outlined in the old testament.

The Promised Land
The history of the Jewish people begins with Abraham, and the story of Abraham begins when G-d tells him to leave his homeland, promising Abraham and his descendants a new home in the land of Canaan. (Gen. 12). This is the land now known as Israel, named after Abraham's grandson, whose descendants are the Jewish people. The land is often referred to as the Promised Land because of G-d's repeated promise (Gen. 12:7, 13:15, 15:18, 17:8) to give the land to the descendants of Abraham.

http://www.jewfaq.org/israel.htm

<snip>

More to the point, Israel would have been different if it had been created many years before. It would have been established like New Zealand, or the United States, or Australia. At the time these countries were created, nobody really gave any thought to the rights of the indigenous peoples. The misfortune of Zionism was precisely that it belonged to the twentieth century. When I say that Jewry was converted to Zionism by events, I don't mean that Hitler created Israel, but what Hitler and the Final Solution unquestionably did was to create this identification between western Jewry and the new Jewish State, with the result that Jewish anti-Zionism, which had had a very strong tradition before then, really became morally impossible.

<snip>

http://www.theatlantic.com/unbound/bookauth/zionism/gwint.htm

what is it?

Do we deny them an equal opportunaty at citizenship?

That'll be news to the Arab members of Knesset.

England is a theocracy, as are the vast majority of Arab states.

existence it should expect this.

Israel is the homeland to the Jewish people -- a group that shares religious, cultural and ancestral ties as well as a common heritage.

policies.

Israel's Arabs can vote and live as citizens.

Which is why the war in Iraq is so much more tragic. Saddam had every right to oppress and murder his citizens. If he didn't make them live under his thumb, they may have risen up against him.

If he had allowed free religious expression, and not censored the press,committed purges and not put down rebellions against him, he may have been faced with a hostile populace which may have driven the minority Baathists from the country,or even tried to wipe them out.
Poor Saddam was just trying to protect his people and his way of life. How could we have attacked him over him going just a little overboard in protecting his people. He was trying to save Iraq from destruction.
I know that many people lived, and continue to live, in horrible conditions, but the minority Baathists were actually very middle and upper class, and doing quite well.
Saddam occasionally had to "get tough" with dissident elements, but if he didn't, he knew it might be the end of baathist Iraq. Didn't Saddam's Iraq have the right to exist and defend itself against people who would like to see it destroyed?

/sarcasm off

2 the Palestinian authority?

I think we should ask, how many have we sold to Hamas or Islamic Jihad?

Not until they show they support peace and not terror.

There is much dislike for Israel among rationally thinking people for the simple reason that Israel practicies a brand of apartheid and apartheid is wrong. While there are a large number of bigots out there who would like to characterise opposition to Israeli apartheid as a fundamentally racist belief the fact of the matter is that pro-Israel bigots are defending the indefensible position that god has given Israel special permission to kill anyone or take anything that it wants.

ISRAEL IS JUST A PEACEFULL COUNTRY LIKE OTHERS ....

Israel is a diverse nation with about 1 million non-Jews. How diverse is Saudi Arabia for example?

By your argument, apartheid-era South Africa did not practice apartheid as it was a diverse nation with millions of blacks. The degree of doublethink necessary to rationalize this position is unfathomable.

Apartheid has virtually nothing to do with demographics and is defined as a policy or practice of separating or segregating groups, particularly by race. Pre-majority rule South Africa denied blacks access to civil society and segregated them into defined ghettos ('townships'). Contemporary Israel does exactly the same thing: the only differences are that Israel's 'townships' are the occupied territories and the lines of segregation are defined by religion rather than skin color.

The demographics and diversity of Saudi Arabia are utterly irrelevant. We are discussing Israel, not Saudi Arabia.

I think most Palestinians would clearly say they are not Israeli and don't want to be. So why should Israel attempt to change that. Don't you want a Palestinian state?

Or if you call forcibly expelling the native population to create a state.

Or if you expand your borders as a result of agression and then occupy territories for 35+ years at the expense of UN resolutions. Oppress occupied people and so on and so forth.

:eyes:

We are liberals and israel isn't liberal right now. It is that simple. Israel is persuing an antiliberal Jim Crow policy, on the palistinians. They are like American blacks under Jim Crow. We liberals have no use for Jim Crow, and we never did. It is Western Style democracy like the American south was Western Style democracy. Liberals didn't like Apartied South Africa either. Why don't you blind supporters of israel see this?

They are Arab members of the Israeli Knesset. Trust me, as soon as the union soldiers left the South, that was not the same case.

dated 2002

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,866422,00.html

context, and even that article includes, "...The knesset has begun proceedings to bar three Arab members and their parties from next month's general election because of their support for the Palestinian..."

The Arab members are still in the Knesset.

? They weren't allowed representation proportional to their percentage in the population, and were segregated to homelands, most without voting rights. By this standard apartied wasn't apartied.

.

there are still Arab representatives in the Knesset. This 'purge' never happened.

In fact, the most prominent of these representatives, MK Azmi Bishara, just met with Syrian President Bashar Assad in Qatar about a week back.

Please get your facts straight.

Israel only allows 1/5 of Palestinians to vote.

seeing as how you are including the Palestinians from the occupied territories in your statistics, do you think that Israeli Jews should be able to have a vote in electing the Palestinian President? If not, why not?

country, what is your point? I think that if settlers want to be part of the new Palestinian State they should be given full citizenship if they want, and they should be able to vote and run for office.

Can vote. Those who are not Israeli citizens can't vote. Big surprise.

and some blacks were allowed to vote. 1% of blacks in the South were allowed to vote. So what? The majority weren't. The majority of Palestinians aren't, and never will be.. The only ones who are allowed to vote and run are the 10% that managed to not be ethnically cleansed.

Anyway, I find the idea that someone who supports a pick themselves up by their bootstraps approach to the poor, to be an authority on liberalism laughable, but our mods like to make things interesting I guess.

Compared to the "aparteid" state of Israel, those Arab countries are the model of democracy and human rights. Just ask the women who live there. I'd say ask the Jews but there are very few left. Wonder why??

The double standard is alive and well!!!!!

because we aren't asked to finance their segregation based on sex. We are being asked to finance settlements.

if US dollars aren't involved. BTW, as far as I know we do finance the Palestinians, though not as much.

I really have no idea what you are saying by I am leaving this thread now. I/P topics here really send a chill down my spine. What is said about a country I hold dear, Israel, makes me very sad.

If I thought the majority in our party felt as many do here I'd worry. Fortunatly, our leaders and major candidates do not voice the opinions here.

aipac creates that they represent most jews, and by the defense industry that profits by israel being controlled by their militaristic likudites.

by your great mind reading abilities. Why do you support people that supress their "true beliefs" because of intimidation.

BTW, as a Jew I do believe that AIPAC does represent the views of the majority of us. Do you have evidence to the contrary or are you mind reading again?

This is a two party democracy unfortunately. The alternative in this case (repukes) have the same views on Israel, and the rest of their views suck too. My evidence that aipac doesn't represent most jews is polling data, which shows aipac doesn't represent most jews.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Israel/Deal_Breakers.html

We finance the Palestinians to some extent. We give aid to the Saudis and Kuwait and Egypt et al. I don't see anyone here particularly upset about that. It's just Israel. Makes one wonder.

They've had a hand in overthrowing democratically elected leaders in other countries and installing dictators. Their interest is in what serves their needs, and if dictators will allow US companies to operate while the elected leaders would have followed a policy of public ownership of companies, the US will run with the dictator every time. I'd say the US self-interest in the Middle East has little to do with whether Israel is a democracy or not, but to do with things like it having been strategically important to the US, and it being in the interest of the US for there to be some instability in the region...

While there's nothing conspiracy theorish about admitting that 'pro-Israel' folk like the neo-cons and various lobby groups do successfully have influence on US foreign policy (after all they're quite open that this is what they're doing), and the US does have influence on Israel, influence is a completely different thing than control. To say that Israel controls US policy, or the other way round is where things get really silly, but as I'm not sure whether you think talking about influence is equally silly, I don't know whether yr referring to influence, control, or both...

Just curious. What do you mean when you talk about hatred of Israel? People are accused of that routinely for legitimate criticism of Israels actions in the Occupied Territories, so I'd like to know what you refer to when you talk about hatred. My rule of thumb is if people are criticising Israel for things that they don't criticise other democracies for, it may be possible there might be hatred involved, but just as likely as it is for those who blindly support everything Israel does and go apoleptic when anyone dares to criticise Sharon praise Israel for doing things that they'd criticise other democracies for doing...

Violet...

regarding the 'hatred of Israel' line: I am only going by a newbie's observations, that's all.

Frankly, I was just surprised to see all the venom spewed in the I/P forum here; it seems so personal that I was definitely taken aback.

I'd still like to know what you define as hatred of Israel. Being a regular of the I/P forum, I'd also like to see examples of 'all the venom' being spewed there...

Also, I was hoping you'd explain whether its influence, control or both that you see as conspiracy-theory stuff when it comes to the US and Israel...

Violet...

Easy to see that the field is not only tilted but crooked.

Why isn't junior in the middle east this very moment? Oh, I see, he has to raise money for his re-election, 'eh?

Just like when he was 'supposed' to be in Viet Nam.

And that was before he quit drinking...

According to Rules for Posting in the Latest Breaking News Forum, discussion of Israeli/Palestinian issues is not permitted in the Latest Breaking News forum, and instead must be posted in the Israeli/Palestinian Affairs forum. If, however, the news item is primarily about U.S. policy in Israeli/Palestinian affairs, you may post it in the Latest Breaking News forum. While this news item is about U.S. policy, the discussion has devolved into prototypical I/PA rhetoric without the disciplines of that forum. Therefore, I'm locking this thread.

Thank you for your understanding and cooperation,
TahitiNut - DU moderator